memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Collaboration of the Week
I think a big problem with MA right now is that while we are all willing a make little changes, nobody really wants to do the major work on something like an episode summary, or major event (ie Earth-Romulan War, and Babel Crisis) I think a partial sollution would be to create a Collaboration of Week on the main page. It would be the main focus, and after a week is replace with another major page needing attention. Jaz 02:25, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) :I think this idea was already brought forth within the past month or two with the name Refit of the Week. The idea had some support at first, but it eventually was dropped. I personally supported the idea and would still support it if the idea came up again. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 02:28, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) ::I also supported the idea and was disappointed when it was deleted due to lack of interest. Like the duty roster and peer review ideas, it had a lot of steam at first but simmered down and came to a near-halt. The difference is that with the Refit of the Week you (obviously) have to change it weekly and thus need the entire community to back the idea because it can't sustain itself without constant attention. There are various arguments in favor of or in opposition to the idea, but ultimately I think that was why the RotW died. ::However, in defense of current efforts, the duty roster is there for people who want to take on the somewhat tedious task of summaries and I think there are a lot of major events that have been featured. Also James T. Kirk has made a huge amount of progress these past few days, even if only because of one person. :) --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 02:56, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) I just feel like we have these huge articles on tiny topics that are easy to right about (which isn't a problem), while things like Starfleet are left incomplete. We need to work on them as a collective, and we need to put it on the main page. I'd like it if we could reach some sort of consensus on this over the next few days, and hopefully, for the admin to add it to the main page. Jaz 05:42, 7 Jan 2006 (UTC) Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition to this, I'd like to formally request that the admin add a collaboration or refit of the week to the main page, as well as a talk page to discuss future refits (I would but it is a protected page). Thanks a lot :) Jaz 06:20, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::Well, there's a whole discussion about the old&failed "Refit of the Week" in the Ten Forward Archive, including its Vfd consensus to delete the page. The "technical" question of simply recreating a page that had deletion consensus aside, I myself don't want to simply repeat an old mistake (let's make new ones...;) ), so perhaps we should find out first why that page failed and how/if we can avoid that the next time. -- Cid Highwind 12:06, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::In addition to the above, I just want to reiterate and explain some of my concerns with the old refit page. :::*''Overlap with PNA lists and peer review'':We have the various PNA messages (in this case especially pna-incomplete) and related lists to both mark articles and find them for further editing. We also have the peer review page to further enhance articles. I think that another page to find and enhance pages that need work will not miraculously solve all problems that the existing pages don't manage to solve. Starfleet, for example, is marked as incomplete since March 2005, but has no discussion regarding this status on its talk page. Instead of creating another discussion page, wait for that article to become selected, then wait again for others to participate, one could simply add to the article what he/she knows, then start a discussion on Talk:Starfleet to invite others to add known facts, and in a last step, create a peer review for it. :::*''Complex voting procedure'':The procedure described on the now deleted page was to nominate articles you think need work, then let others vote on articles they think should be made the "Refit of the Week", then choose the one with the most votes to become the new "Refit". Why does it have to be so complicated? I'm either interested&able to contribute to an article (in that case I could just do it instead of voting to do it later), or I'm not (in which case I probably won't even vote). Leaving that voting procedure aside, we'd either end up with a page where people add articles they think need work by someone else (that's exactly the function of pna-incomplete), or with a page where people promise to work on an article if others at least give hints about what to do (that's approximately the function of peer review). :::-- Cid Highwind 15:09, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) I actually haven't read most of the comments on here yet, but as the person who created the refit page (it was under discussion, as can be seen on the archive page, and I took the liberty of creating the page when someone linked to it) and was a big proponent, I think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie and not be bold in (re-)creating anything similar. Weyoun 21:27, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) :(Whoops, a misunderstanding) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 22:57, 9 Jan 2006 (UTC)